On The Fountainhead

No artigo da Wikipedia sobre este excelente (e absolutamente imperdível) filme, diz-se isto:

Economist Mark Skousen criticized The Fountainhead on ideological grounds, arguing that Rand's protagonist contradicts a basic premise of laissez-faire capitalism (and therefore of Objectivism) — consumer sovereignty: "Howard Roark's conviction ["An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes."] is irrational... For Roark, A is not A. He wants A to be B — his B, not his customer's A. Thus, Ayn Rand's ideal man misconceives the very nature and logic of capitalism — to fulfill the needs of customers and thereby advance the general welfare."

Rand would respond that "In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner." According to Rand, the basis of capitalism is neither "to fulfill the needs of customers" nor to "advance the general welfare."

Perante esta discussão, o que eu perguntaria era o seguinte: será que Howard Roark, com os seus ideais arquitectónicos, poderia não apenas reverter a lógica do capitalismo, mas transcendê-la completamente? Existirá, no mundo em que vivemos, arquitectura que não reproduza as relações de poder que sustentam o sistema capitalista?